The caste system, one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of Hindu society, has sparked fierce debates for centuries. While reformers like Jyotirao Phule and Sri Narayana Guru fought to dismantle its rigid hierarchies, others stood firm in its defense, arguing it was a sacred and functional order. These pro-caste discrimination groups—rooted in scripture, tradition, and ideology—left an indelible mark on India’s social fabric. Who were they, what did they believe, and how did they justify their stance? Let’s dive into their world.
The Scriptural Backbone: Manu and the Manusmriti
No discussion of pro-caste ideology can skip the Manusmriti, the ancient legal text attributed to the mythical sage Manu (circa 200 BCE–200 CE). Often called the "lawbook of Hinduism," it codified caste duties with chilling precision. One of its most cited verses declares:
"For the prosperity of the worlds, He [the Creator] from His mouth, arms, thighs, and feet created the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra." (Manusmriti 1.31, trans. George Bühler)
This origin story framed caste as divine, with Brahmins (priests) at the top and Shudras (servants) at the bottom. The text didn’t stop at theology—it prescribed strict rules, like barring Shudras from Vedic study: "If a Shudra intentionally listens to the Vedas, his ears should be filled with molten lead" (Manusmriti 4.99). Harsh? Absolutely. But for its defenders, it was a blueprint for cosmic harmony.
Later pro-caste groups leaned heavily on Manu’s authority. The Manusmriti wasn’t just a relic—it was a rallying cry for those who saw caste as Hinduism’s backbone.
The Philosophers: Madhvacharya and the Vedic Order
Fast forward to the medieval era, and we meet Madhvacharya (1238–1317), the founder of Dvaita Vedanta. A towering philosopher, he didn’t just accept caste—he theologized it. Madhvacharya argued that the Varna system reflected innate spiritual capacities, tied to birth and karma. In his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he interpreted Krishna’s words—"The fourfold Varna was created by Me" (4.13)—as proof of a divinely ordained hierarchy.
For Madhvacharya, caste wasn’t oppression; it was destiny. His followers, often Brahmin elites, used his teachings to reinforce their status, claiming spiritual superiority over lower castes. While he focused on metaphysics, his ideas gave intellectual heft to pro-caste groups centuries later.
The Orthodox Revival: Sanatan Dharma Sabhas
By the 19th century, British rule and reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj threatened traditional Hindu norms. Enter the Sanatan Dharma Sabhas—orthodox societies determined to protect caste from "Western corruption." Formed across India, these groups saw caste as the glue of Hindu civilization. One of their key texts, the Dharma Shastra, echoed Manu: "Each caste has its own dharma; to abandon it is to invite chaos."
The Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, founded in 1887, took this further. Its leaders, often Brahmin pandits, argued that caste preserved purity and prevented social "mixing." They opposed inter-caste dining and temple entry for Dalits, claiming such acts defied scripture. In a 1902 manifesto, they wrote: "The Varna system is the eternal law; to break it is to break Hinduism itself" (cited in Jaffrelot, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India).
These groups weren’t just nostalgic—they were militant in their defense of tradition, clashing with reformers like Swami Vivekananda, who called caste a "disease" in its rigid form.
The Hindutva Twist: M. S. Golwalkar’s Vision
In the 20th century, pro-caste ideology found a modern champion in M. S. Golwalkar, the second head of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In his 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar praised the Varna system as a "scientific" social order:
"The Hindu people have lived for centuries in perfect harmony because of the Varna system, which assigns each his place and function."
Golwalkar didn’t deny caste’s inequalities—he embraced them as natural. He distinguished "casteism" (petty rivalries) from caste itself, which he saw as unifying. While he opposed untouchability to consolidate Hindu unity, he rejected calls to abolish caste, arguing it was integral to India’s identity. His ideas influenced the RSS and its affiliates, shaping a pro-caste narrative within Hindutva circles.
The Brahmin Sabhas: Guardians of Privilege
Localized groups like the Brahman Sabha in Bengal (19th century) took a more practical approach. Comprising Brahmin elites, they resisted anti-caste reforms with a mix of scripture and self-interest. When reformers pushed for widow remarriage or Dalit education, these sabhas pushed back, citing texts like the Rigveda (10.90), which describes society as a body with Brahmins as the head and Shudras as the feet.
Their logic was simple: caste ensured order, and Brahmins were its rightful stewards. In an 1870s petition against reform, a Bengal Sabha declared: "To educate the low-born is to invite rebellion against dharma" (quoted in Sarkar, Writing Social History). It was less theology, more power play—but it worked for them.
Why Did They Fight for Caste?
Pro-caste groups weren’t just stubborn traditionalists. For them, caste was a sacred framework that mirrored the universe’s order—Brahmins as intellect, Kshatriyas as strength, Vaishyas as wealth, Shudras as labor. Disruption meant chaos. Plus, let’s be real: it preserved privilege for the upper castes, who dominated land, temples, and learning.
Their sayings—whether Manu’s stark commands or Golwalkar’s nationalist spin—reveal a worldview where hierarchy wasn’t oppression but purpose. Critics like B. R. Ambedkar called it a "system of graded inequality," but defenders saw it as eternal truth.
Legacy and Tension
Today, pro-caste voices are quieter but not gone. Orthodox pockets and some Hindutva factions still echo these ideas, clashing with India’s constitutional push for equality. The tension between caste’s defenders and its reformers remains a defining thread in Hinduism’s story—a debate as old as the Manusmriti itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment